How things look through an Oregonian's eyes

May 30, 2013

You get to write short essays about subjects that interest you. Those essays, a.k.a. blog posts, are published and made available to readers.

But I've always looked upon blogging as being to genuine column-writing as masturbation is to sex with another person: it's easier to do it all by yourself, yet less satisfying. It does indeed take two to tango.

So I'm thrilled to be able to say, "I am a columnist." In a real publication, made of paper (as well as pixels).

At one point in my life I worried about being considered strange. Now, I consider it a compliment. The most interesting people I’ve known, the most fascinating places I’ve been to, the most unforgettable experiences I’ve had — they’ve all been compellingly strange.

So I’ve got a single qualification for writing this column: I’m strange, and I adore strange. I’ll feel at home in these pages because Salem Weekly also is strange. I’m looking forward to exploring the twists and turns, boundaries, and qualities of strangeness.

Along with you.

Strange Up Salem has to be a communal happening, a venture into uncharted territory where we all stand on the border between who each of us is now and what our city is now, and boldly keep stepping forward.

Onward, into strangeness.

At the age of 64, it's all becoming very clear to me now. Very clear indeed. I'm homing in on the Secret of the Cosmos, the Theory of Everything, the Key that Unlocks Every Mystery.

It's been right in front of me this whole time: strangeness. I just made the mistake of thinking, "That's so strange; I've got to look somewhere else."

No, it's Strange that we want, need, and long for.

It's Strange that makes everyday life into something mind-blowing. It's Strange that converts ordinary into unique, mundane into special, ignorable into can't-take-my-eyes-off-of-you. I'm going to enjoy explaining to others, and to myself, why I'm not crazy to think this way.

May 28, 2013

I appreciate the comments I've gotten. They've made me ponder further the pros and cons of downtown parking meters. I'm still opposed to the idea, but I've learned that the issue divides people in some interesting ways.

Some fellow advocates of this goal agree with what downtown should be, yet feel that parking meters would enhance, rather than detract from, a thriving Salem core.

For example, here's a comment on my post by Lindsay Bayley:

One idea that is gaining traction around the country is using meter revenue to improve the streets where it is collected: (see http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/SmallChange.pdf for how it works). That would help with the fear of "big government" taking money away from small businesses.

In my experience as an urban planner focused on parking policy, usually the downtown employees are the ones parking on the highest demand streets. When you use pricing to influence demand (and not collect revenue), you encourage the long-term parkers to park further away. And people like me who don't like to pay for parking will walk a couple of blocks.

Seems like the $1.50 for Salem is too high in certain areas and too low in the core. I don't live in Salem and have never been - Just my $0.02. Also, I wrote this paper on the topics that Curt is referring to: http://1.usa.gov/CMAP_Parking

It sounds backwards, but meters can be good for business WHEN THEY'RE DONE RIGHT.

So far I haven't closely studied the papers Lindsay shared. However, after scanning through them I now agree that parking meters in downtown Salem could be a good thing for the area, if several things happen.

One, the City of Salem puts a pause on its rush to install parking meters. The planning process followed so far has been bad. Here's what the CMAP Parking Strategies for Livable Communities paper says, in oversized type:

The most important goal is to involve
people in the decision-making
process from the beginning, so that
they better understand the benefits
and costs of parking, and differing
viewpoints can discuss potential
solutions and strategies.

They didn't allow any public participation in the task force that came up with the parking meter proposal. They didn't survey downtown businesses to see how their owners and workers feel about doing away with free 2-hour onstreet parking.

Now the City is paying the price. An initiative petition soon will be circulated to put a Prevent Downtown Parking Meters measure on the November ballot. It will have a great chance of succeeding. Who likes parking meters?

[Update: Carole Smith, who is leading the initiative drive, shared some thoughts about this post in an email to me, which I made into a comment. I'll share her thoughts here also. I basically agree with them. Some of what Carole says pertains to the next section of this post.

We do not have a parking problem in downtown Salem. We have a revenue problem because of irresponsible budgeting by the city. Parking meters are a parking management tool. Don't waste time talking up a solution to a problem we don't have.

The city is NOT going to give money to help downtown if they put in parking meters. The city just took away all our money so they could spend it themselves. What are you thinking?

But, again, this isn't a parking problem. it's a revenue problem. Lets talk about solving that problem - that is why we are doing an initiative petition. To force the city into identifying the correct problem, so we can implement a successful solution.]

Two, the City of Salem has to guaranteee that parking meter revenue will go to downtown improvements. This is one of the core messages in the other paper Lindsay sent me, which describes how Pasadena went about installing parking meters in its historic district.

Debates about the meters dragged on for two years before the city reached a compromise with the merchants and property owners.

To defuse opposition, the city offered
to spend all the meter revenue on public investments in Old Pasadena. The merchants
and property owners quickly agreed to the proposal because they would directly benefit
from it. The city also liked it because it wanted to improve Old Pasadena, and the meter
revenue would pay for the project.

The desire for public improvements that would attract customers to Old Pasadena
soon outweighed fear that paid parking would drive customers away.

Currently the City of Salem wants to use parking meter revenue to maintain downtown parking structures. Ugh. Nobody thinks, "Ooh! Let's go downtown to see the beautiful parking structures!" They are a (possibly) necessary evil, not a positive Salem Historic District attribute.

Supposedly urban renewal money that now goes to the parking structures would be freed up by new parking meter revenue. There has been some talk about using that money for "streetscaping," a vague term.

I don't think downtown businesses trust the City of Salem to improve downtown.

City officials have repeatedly undermined the association that serves downtown when it took positions at odds with the Official Party Line. They recently allowed five beautiful large downtown trees to be removed for no good reason. They want to build an unneeded $600 million Third Bridge that will channel people away from downtown.

I suspect that the only way people who work and live downtown will support parking meters is if they control Historic District development, not the City.

Only the blocks with parking meters receive the added services financed by the
meter revenue. The city worked with Old Pasadena’s Business Improvement District
(BID) to establish the boundaries of the Old Pasadena Parking Meter Zone (PMZ).

The city also established the Old Pasadena PMZ Advisory Board, consisting of business
and property owners who recommend parking policies and set spending priorities for the
zone’s meter revenues. Connecting the meter revenue directly to added public services
and keeping it under local control are largely responsible for the parking program’s
success.

“The only reason meters went into Old Pasadena in the first place,” said Marilyn
Buchanan, chair of the Old Pasadena PMZ, “was because the city agreed all the money
would stay in Old Pasadena.”

I'd feel more positive about downtown parking meters if I knew that all of the revenue from them would be spent by an association of downtown business owners to make the Historic District more attractive to visitors -- not to pay for maintaining outmoded parking structures.

Let the people who work and live in downtown determine the future of downtown, naturally with the advice of those like me who visit the area regularly and want to see it thrive. Then parking meters might make sense.

May 26, 2013

There's a Taoist story about Chuang Tzu not knowing whether he is a man dreaming that he's a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming that he's a man.

This is similar to what happens when I wonder, "how old do I feel that I am?"

I don't feel like I'm 64. If I don't gaze at my body, which obviously has aged, the "me" inside my head finds it difficult to tell the difference between senior citizen-me and teenager-me.

Yet can I say that I'm now a teenage mind in a senior citizen body? Or should I say that when I had a teenager body, I possessed a senior citizen mind?

Neither seems correct. And I'm not exactly (or even inexactly) a Taoist sage who doesn't identify with being either a butterfly or a person, or either a teenager or a senior citizen.

Whatever age I've been, it has seemed just the right age to be. Further: from the inside of me, ignoring the increasingly aged outside, I really don't feel that I am any age.

Which seems to support the notion of an immortal soul-consciousness, something I don't believe in.

So if I'm not a drop of ageless spiritual essence, destined for eternity, what explains my closed-eyes feeling that I'm no age at all? Really, I have no idea. I'm just thankful for it.

Because it means that if my body is willing, my mind says Go for it, dude! That's just what it would have said when I was a teenager, except for the fact that back in the 1960's "dude" wasn't part of the teenage boy lexicon.

Today I spent some enjoyable time on Amazon lusting after the modern incarnation of black auto/truck inner tubes.

I'm going to play with one this summer, just like I inner-tubed my way along the snow-melt fed Kaweah River in the foothills of the Sierras when I was young. The Metolius River in central Oregon is even colder, but if I can trust the position of that dude in the photo, my butt and legs shouldn't freeze (too much).

Walking along the Metolius recently, scouting anticipated tubing runs, I realized that my frame of mind felt almost exactly like it did when I was a Kaweah River tubing kid.

Sure, back then I'd jump into raging rapids and think later. Now, I'm more cautious -- though partly because I want to take my six year old granddaughter along with me, and don't want to subject her to more watery excitement than she can handle.

Googling "as old as you feel," I learned some things about what this phrase means. Still, I came away unsatisfied. This article was typical:

Positive views on aging may help people bounce back from disability and promote independent living in a variety of ways, the researchers say.

One of the biggest ways may be psychological. Stewart says a person’s attitudes about aging say a lot about how much they believe their health is under their own control.

For example, people who view seniors as spry rather than decrepit may be more likely to live a healthy lifestyle, keep up on their doctor appointments, and take their medicines as prescribed.

Well, that misses the point -- from my "as old as you feel" perspective. It isn't really that I feel like I'm a spry old person (though I am). It's more that I'm not sure how old I am, notwithstanding the date of birth on my driver's license.

Now it could be argued that if I get hurt, depressed, or am in chronic pain, I'll feel like an old person. However, how would this be different from the hurt, depression, or pain I might have felt (and indeed did feel) when I was a teenager?

Which returns me to the whole butterfly/Chuang Tzu thing.

What is the difference between an old person who feels young, and a young person who feels old? Is there any difference? Does the human brain, mind, consciousness, or whatever you want to call it have any age associated with it?

Not the bodily side of us.

Obviously that has a defined chronological span of existence that begins at birth. But the mental side of us. The side that gets excited about inner-tubing down a river, or sad about suffering a disappointment.

Both happened to me when I was young. Both happened to me when I was old. Yes, I'm as young as I feel. And I feel like I'm neither young nor old.

May 24, 2013

It took me a long time to start using a Kindle. I never thought I'd enjoy reading anything other than books printed on paper.

But now I'm a convert -- for fiction, at least. (I still am addicted to highlighting paper pages of non-fiction books in my own personal colorful way, along with penning notes on blank endpages.)

It was a delight to use my Kindle Paperwhite during a recent Maui vacation. Not so much, though, on the five hour flights to and from Portland.

Settling into my seat as the Alaska flight was about to take off, I pulled out my Kindle. I'd already put my iPhone into "airplane mode." Had no idea that my Kindle was a dangerous device.

"Sir, you need to put that away." The flight attendant was pointing at my Kindle. "Huh?" I said blankly. "It needs to be turned off before takeoff."

Not only then, I learned. All the way up to 35,000 feet. And once we started to descend below that elevation. Which struck me as seriously bizarre.

Not being able to read for twenty or thirty minutes, I had plenty of time to ponder the absurdity of the current electronic device situation on airplanes.

If my Kindle is a potentially dangerous object, why couldn't a terrorist make a Super Kindle filled with much more powerful electronic mayhem? No one actually checks to see whether cell phones, e-readers, and such are turned off as a plane takes off or lands.

It sure seems like either (1) no one should be allowed to take any sort of electronic device onto an airplane, or (2) everyone should be able to use whatever they want, at any time they want during a flight.

I vote for (2). If modern airplanes are so fragile that their safe operation can be threatened by the operation of common electronic devices, then fix the damn airplanes!

One member of the group and an official of the F.A.A., both of whom asked for anonymity because they were not allowed to speak publicly about internal discussions, said the agency was under tremendous pressure to let people use reading devices on planes, or to provide solid scientific evidence why they cannot.

As I wrote in 2011, travelers are told to turn off their iPads and Kindles for takeoff and landing, yet there is no proof that these devices affect a plane’s avionics. To add to the confusion, the F.A.A. permits passengers to use electric razors and audio recorders during all phases of flight, even though those give off more electronic emissions than reading tablets.

...To guarantee that the F.A.A. follows through with its promise to relax the rules, Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat of Missouri, said she planned to hold the agency accountable by introducing legislation.

In a phone interview, Ms. McCaskill said she had grown frustrated with the F.A.A.’s stance on devices after she learned that the agency now allows iPads as flight manuals in the cockpit and has subsequently given out devices to some flight attendants with information on flight procedures.

“So it’s O.K. to have iPads in the cockpit; it’s O.K. for flight attendants — and they are not in a panic — yet it’s not O.K. for the traveling public,” she said. “A flying copy of ‘War and Peace’ is more dangerous than a Kindle.”

May 22, 2013

I asked a great question at today's DemoForum session on whether a Third Bridge is needed in Salem, Oregon.

"Mr. Fernandez, what is the single most important reason Salem needs a Third Bridge? And please support your reason with some facts."

The answer City of Salem Public Works director Peter Fernandez gave was direct, concise, and straightforward.

Also... proof that a Third Bridge isn't needed, just as No Third Bridge spokesperson Scott Bassett argued at the forum.

Consider this: Fernandez is a smart guy.

Also, he's an experienced engineer. He has been intimately involved with Third Bridge planning for years. He's speaking at a forum filled with people skeptical about the project. The Mayor and several city councillors are in attendance.

Public Works Director Peter Fernandez is going to come up with the very best answer he can to my question.

I asked for the single most important reason. Numero Uno. #1. The words most likely to make opponents of a Third Bridge think, "whoa, maybe we really do need this thing!"

So how did Fernandez respond?

By saying that the single most important reason is that there is only one way into and out of West Salem. Redundancy and safety were the top reasons a Third Bridge is needed. He said that the bridges are seismically unfit. Currently serious accidents on the bridge tie up traffic for long distances into neighborhoods on both sides of the river.

Sort of true.

But these are lousy reasons to spend $600 million or so on a Third Bridge. Scott Bassett explained why when he took the microphone in response to Fernandez' answer to my question.

Obviously Salem already has two bridges, or we wouldn't be talking about a Third Bridge. Fernandez' reference to one bridge probably meant that the current bridges each are four lanes going one way, westbound or eastbound. But Bassett pointed out that plans already exist for some lanes to be reversed on a bridge if an accident shuts down the other bridge.

Further, the Union Street walking/biking "pedestrian" bridge is capable of handling emergency vehicles. And there is another bridge across the Willamette in Independence, about twenty minutes away. So a $600 million Third Bridge wouldn't offer much additional redundancy.

[Update: here's a Vimeo video of the DemoForum session. My question is asked and answered at about the 55:00 minute mark.]

A new bridge would, however, be much more likely to survive the 9.0 Big One earthquake which will hit western Oregon eventually. It isn't a question of "if," but of "when." The geological historical record proves that.

Bassett addressed this issue in his remarks. The current bridges need to be retrofitted. He said they were designed to remain standing after a powerful earthquake, but not to remain usable. (Of course, many roads likely won't be usable after the Big One either.)

The situation is akin to what my wife and I faced. We live in a house that was built in the early '70s, before building codes required stricter earthquake standards. Instead of buying a newer house, we spent way less to retrofit our home and garage.

Peter Fernandez' answer to my question points to the wisdom of doing the same thing with the current bridges: retrofit them; this can be done for tens of millions rather than hundreds of millions of dollars.

Bassett discussed improvements to the road connections that could be made at the ends of the current bridges. These would take care of congestion problems -- even though tellingly, Fernandez did not mention traffic congestion in his Most Important Reason response.

Bottom line: today the City of Salem Public Works director admitted that the most important reason to build a Third Bridge isn't a very good reason. Redundancy and safety concerns with the current bridges can be resolved without constructing another bridge across the Willamette.

Watch this instructive No Third Bridge video to learn more about why Salem doesn't need a new bridge.

Yet the City of Salem is determined to force paid parking down downtown's throat. Why? The reason remains a mystery, like other recent ill-advised City decisions.

US Bank got an approval to cut down five large beautiful trees in downtown Salem. For no good reason. Three years ago the City's Public Works director, Peter Fernandez, made a promise to the US Bank president that the trees could be removed.

Then flimsy reasons were conjured up in an attempt to justify the tree-killing decision. Same thing is happening with Third Bridge planning: a decision to build another bridge, which would channel people away from downtown, has been made without considering better and cheaper transportation alternatives.

Now we've got a rush by the City to install parking meters downtown. Again, with little or no consideration of whether this will solve the purported problems meters are supposed to solve; and with little or no listening to the downtown businesses that will be affected by a shift from free to paid parking.

The Downtown Parking Task Force project began hopefully enough last year. The original intent was to listen to the public first, to both the business owners and the customers. Hear them share their needs and dreams, perhaps in our Library’s auditorium, and from those conversations, develop potential strategies at open meetings.

Instead, Task Force and city staff members met at 7:30 a.m. in the library’s lower-level Anderson Room; seated in a “U” with their backs to the public they were meant to serve. As the months passed there was never an opportunity for the public to speak.

Recently the Mayor, City Manager, members of the Parking Task Force, and other proponents of parking meters met with the Statesman Journal editorial board. I watched the entire hour-plus video of the session. I came away unconvinced that meters are needed.

Unfortunately, the Statesman Journal followed its usual policy of being on the side of whatever the City of Salem leadership and Chamber of Commerce are for, whether or not the public interest is being served. The resulting editorial, though annoyingly wishy-washy, supported moving ahead with parking meters -- even though it acknowledged that this could turn out to be a bad idea.

The Parking Task Force didn't survey downtown business owners to ask how they thought parking meters would affect them. Shameful.

Such is par for the course these days with the City of Salem. Expert advice and citizen input are ignored; the US Bank tree-killing debacle and looming Third Bridge disaster are further examples.

Read what downtown business owners and other citizens think about downtown parking meters here and here. These informed comments provide a lot of ammunition to shoot down the parking meter proposal. I have some additional skeptical bullets:

(1) Currently four large downtown businesses, such as Penney's, pay most of the parking tax that supports downtown parking garages and other parking expenses. If meters are installed, that tax goes away. This amounts to a wealth transfer to large corporations at the expense of downtown visitors. Penney's will save over $40,000 a year.

(2) Reportedly the Convention Center pays nothing for parking, yet benefits from the City parking structure right across the street. Other governmental entities apparently pay nothing for parking either. Why should big business and big government get a free parking ride?

(3) The main reason parking meters are being recommended by the Task Force is to pay for the capital and operating costs of downtown parking structures, which currently provide free parking to visitors. So why aren't parking meters planned for the structures? Why should onstreet parkers feed their meters in order to provide free parking to people who use the structures?

Now there is free onstreet parking, and free offstreet parking in the structures. If parking meters make downtown onstreet parking costly, then offstreet parkers should incur the same cost. After all, the purported purpose of the meters is to meet the cost of maintaining and operating the parking structures.

Those who use the structures should pay much or most of the costs associated with them. Logically, this seems obvious. Yet the Parking Task Force didn't recommend this. Here's my conspiracy theory about why:

In my experience as a frequent downtown visitor, the structures are more likely to be used by people heading to large businesses such as Penney's, and to the Salem Center mall. After all, skybridges connect the structures to these places.

There is no skybridge from a parking structure to the small businesses I have frequented for many years: RJ Dance Studio, Venti's, Beanery, Pacific Martial Arts, Great Harvest, etc. I use onstreet parking when I go to these small businesses, because it is much more convenient. And very rarely, if ever, have I had to park in a structure because I couldn't find an onstreet parking space.

Thus my suspicion is that the City of Salem is tilting toward large businesses, and away from small businesses, in this parking meter proposal. By using onstreet meter revenue to subsidize free parking in the structures, Penney's, Salem Center, and the Convention Center will continue to have free parking easily available to their customers -- while not having to pay any parking tax.

Yet it is small businesses that make downtown Salem as attractive as it is. And it is small businesses which should be supported by City of Salem policies. Downtown Salem is on the edge of being vibrantly ascendent. It also is on the edge of sliding downhill.

Which side downtown moves toward will be affected by how attractive the area is to visitors, and thus to businesses.

Already the City has authorized the killing of five beautiful trees that used to grace downtown's State Street. And the City is determined to build a Third Bridge that would funnel people away from downtown toward Keizer Station and points north.

Now the City wants to install parking meters, which means large businesses wouldn't have to pay their fair share, or indeed any share, of downtown parking costs. I'm not saying the City of Salem hates downtown small businesses. But I can understand why someone would come to that conclusion.

May 18, 2013

If you're a Salem-area resident who cares about providing the best education possible for our children, in the May 21 election be sure to vote for Cris Brantley, Nancy MacMoriss-Adix, and Rick Kimball.

They're running for the Salem-Keizer school board. Each is in favor of the district's Teen Outreach Program, TOP -- which is demonstrably effective:

TOP IS EFFECTIVETOP has demonstrated the following results: • 53% reduction in the risk of teen pregnancy or fathering a child • 52% reduction in the risk of school suspension • 60% reduction in the risk of course failure

I can't understand why anyone would be in favor of more teen pregnancies, school suspensions, and course failures. But some people (including write-in candidates) running for the Salem-Keizer school board are.

That's why it is important to vote for Brantley, MacMoriss-Adiz, and Kimball. Be sure to deposit your ballot at a drop site, because it is too late to mail your ballot and be sure it will arrive by May 21.

As reported by the Salem Statesman-Journal:

The health program is funded by a grant from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. It is taught by a school district teacher with help from a Planned Parenthood facilitator.

But those who hate Planned Parenthood, an organization that is highly effective in reducing both unwanted pregnancies and abortions through education about responsible sexual behavior and birth control, have falsely claimed that Planned Parenthood is "teaching health classes."

Anyone who doesn't respect truth shouldn't be on a school board.

Elect Cris Brantley, Nancy MacMoriss-Adix, and Rick Kimball. They care about educating children, not about pushing their own extreme political agenda and lies about the TOP program.

May 16, 2013

I only had one request to make of the Salem Weekly editors: if you have to shorten my opinion piece about the City of Salem's outrageous approval of a US Bank request to cut down five beautiful Zelkova trees, please...

Don't take out my references to Tony Soprano and the Bada Bing Club. Pretty please. With New Jersey mobster frosting on top.

Happily, they didn't. "A promise is a promise" was published almost exactly as I wrote it. Here's the first Soprano's reference.

There was no good reason to remove the trees. None. Three times the city’s Shade Tree Committee recommended pruning them, not killing them. Salem’s urban forester agreed. So did independent arborists. Neighboring business owners wanted the five trees saved.

So why did Public Works director Peter Fernandez approve US Bank regional president Alan Allbritton’s application to have the trees removed? Here’s where the story starts to sound more like the New Jersey of Tony Soprano than supposedly squeaky-clean Salem.

Now, I want to assure Peter Fernandez and Alan Allbritton that I don't believe they are engaged in truly nefarious dealings. Some hyperbole and exaggeration is par for the course in most sorts of writing.

But mildly nefarious? Sure.

When I've described what happened here in Salem to people unacquainted with our city, the reaction has been "Wow, the tree cutting sounds so sleazy."

Peter Fernandez ignored the thrice-repeated recommendation of the Shade Tree committee. Admitting that US Bank’s sidewalk liability concerns weren’t pertinent to his decision, he conjured up some pitifully weak reasons to cut down the trees. Each reason screamed “prune” to arborists, not kill.

Then the City of Salem sent a letter to tree removal opponents notifying them of Fernandez’ approval. Outrageously, it arrived on the very day of the appeal deadline. An attorney has told me that opponents had grounds to appeal. But its damn tough to appeal a City of Salem decision when you’re notified about it too late to legally do so.

In the grand scheme of things it could be argued that cutting down healthy large trees for no good reason doesn't rank very high on the scale of Outrageous Acts.

That may be.

However, this episode is a window that provides a view into how the current leadership of the City of Salem -- mayor, city manager, department heads, councilors -- go about making public policy decisions.

How much do they value citizen testimony? To what extent do they pay attention to facts and expert advice? Do special interests have more sway than the broad public interest? Are "political" decisions made first, with reasons drummed up later?

Time will offer up better answers to these questions.

Debate over a Third Bridge and downtown parking meters is continuing, and will heat up. How the City handles these issues will tell us a lot about whether Tony Soprano-style deal-making is taking hold in Salem.

May 14, 2013

If I was a betting man -- and Vegas placed odds on ill-advised city public works projects -- I'd put money on the City of Salem's Third Bridge project going down in well-deserved flames.

I wasn't able to attend last night's City Council hearing on the project. But thanks to a hot-off-the-blog post from Salem Breakfast on Bikes, I got a good feel for the increasing desperation of Third Bridge proponents.

With opposition increasing by the day, it's telling that Public Works director Peter Fernandez now is calling the latest iteration of the bridge/quasi-freeway design, the "Salem Alternative." Sounds like the $100,000 a month planning team is trying to earn its keep.

I'll admit that Salem Alternative has a better ring to it than 4-D, or whatever the heck the previous preferred design was called.

(If they'd called it 44-D, maybe at least the Third Bridge would have gotten a thumbs-up from subscribers to Big Boobs magazine; so far the vast majority of Salem-area residents appear to be saying No! to this $700 million waste of taxpayer money.)

But no matter what the Third Bridge is called, some plain facts remain: it isn't needed; it isn't wanted; and it can't be afforded.

May 12, 2013

Today's opinion piece about a proposed Third Bridge in Salem was so confusingly argued, it deserves the "not even wrong" -- a phrase attributed to physicist Wolfgang Pauli when he objected to incorrect or sloppy thinking.

-- It won't be built for 15-20 years.-- No one knows if it will be needed then.-- No one knows if it will be wanted then.-- No one knows if it can be afforded then.

Yet somehow something that is questionably needed, wanted, and afforded is a "sound concept"? This reflects a basic problem with how the Salem establishment (City Council, Statesman Journal, Chamber of Commerce) views the world.

A desired future for Salem is lacking. The public isn't involved in forming a coherent, consensual, community vision for the sort of place we want to become. Instead, we get more of the same -- reactive disjointed planning that responds to short-term "political" pressures (using that term in a broad sense) rather than long-term aspirations.

Playing into this, the editorial urges Salem to pursue a Third Bridge that isn't needed now, isn't wanted now, and can't be afforded now, yet maybe, perhaps, just might be, in 15-20 years -- for reasons unknown and unspecified.

Instead of saying "THIS is the Salem we want to become, and THIS is why the Third Bridge is needed to help make that happen," advocates of the Salem River Crossing rely on vague assumptions about what might occur a few decades from now, hoping that somehow current plans for an unneeded, unwanted, unaffordable bridge will meld with an unknowable future.

Here's an alternative idea: form that future, rather than react to it. Listen to what Salem area residents want. Do we want a strong downtown, alternatives to automotive travel, thriving businesses and residences in walkable communities along the river?

Decide what sort of place we want Salem to be, then, if necessary, design a river crossing that will enhance that vision.

But that also was a lesson for student journalists: To be effective, they can't just spout off. They have to back up opinions with evidence and they have to present all sides of an issue.

Instead of talking right over "objections to the project" and dismissing them by fiat and circular logic -"the bridge is needed" because we need a bridge! - the SJ refuses its own advice to "back up opinions with evidence" and "present all sides of an issue."

(At least they did publish a counter-point from 1000 Friends just below the editorial, but is significant they did not hold one of those "editorial board" lunchtime meetings with critics and with supporters. It's hard to see that the SJ has taken strong measures on both the reporting and the editorial side to investigate the project thoroughly.)

...WESD [Willamette Educational Service District] and Courthouse Square have got tons of reportorial resources applied to them. The proposed giant bridge and highway is in cost more than an order of magnitude greater, hundreds of millions rather than tens of millions.

By this calculation it is reasonable to ask whether 10x the staff time should be allocated to investigating claims and intellectual honesty in the DEIS [draft Environmental Impact Statement] about the giant bridge and highway! The case is far from proved, and the SJ has an actual job to do in "backing up opinions with evidence" on a once-in-a-generation sized project.

Maybe most crucially, it is far from proven that Salem has done all it could do.

I'm sure there are good arguments to be made for building a Third Bridge. But I haven't seen them yet, and the Statesman Journal editorial didn't make any.

A trend is evident when the SJ expresses its newpaper'ish collective opinion on important issues: the editorial board takes a position, but not a stand. This deserves the insult, "not even wrong." (See my post about the SJ's endorsement of Mitt Romney in 2012; also "not even wrong.")

Why? Because someone who is open and straightforward in arguing for a position either can convince others that she is right, or can be convinced that she is wrong -- since arguments based on facts and reasons can be rebutted.

The Statesman Journal's shaky "position" on the Third Bridge is that it's worth continuing to look into the possibility of another bridge across the Willamette, because maybe, someday, perhaps 20 years from now, it might be needed, wanted, and affordable.

Though none of those things is true now.

The SJ's maybe, someday attitude is at odds with the Third Bridge timetable on the Oregon Department of Transportation web site. Looks to me like a final decision is scheduled for mid-2014, with design and construction happening immediately after.

As some commenters on the editorial said, given the importance of this issue the newpaper's editorial board should have sat down with proponents and opponents of a Third Bridge. Let each side make its best case. Assess the facts. Ponder alternative futures for downtown, west Salem, and other parts of Salem.

Should Salem design, build, and pay for a Third Bridge, or not? Explain why the Statesman Journal came down on the side that it did. Then people can debate how valid those reasons were, and how accurate the facts backing up those reasons were.

Instead, readers of the Statesman Journal were given an editorial so wishy-washy it wasn't even wrong. Because being right or wrong means taking a coherent position on some subject, and the SJ didn't do that.

Politicians love few things better than a scandal to trip up their opponents, and Republicans hope last year’s fatal attack on U.S. diplomats in Libya will do exactly that to Hillary Rodham Clinton and other Democrats.

History suggests it might be a tough lift. The issue is complex, the next presidential election is more than three years away, and a number of reports and officials have disputed criticisms of Clinton’s role when she was secretary of state.

Nice metaphor: the trailer for the hearings promised a lot more than the actual "movie" delivered.

The pretense was, of course, that this is all about national security and a dastardly Obama campaign electioneering scheme followed by a coverup. The problem, to mix entertainment media for a moment, is that the trailer for the hearing, as is so often the case, promised to deliver a lot more than we ultimately got.

Days ahead of time we'd been told the then-deputy chief of the U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya, Gregory Hicks, would blow the whistle on the allegedly feckless response to the attack. Foxaganda, CBS and other media reported Hicks was furious that no jet fighters had been scrambled to fly over Benghazi to make the attackers of the U.S. consulate and CIA Annex there wet their pants and flee.

And he also was incensed about the military's order to Special Operations soldiers to "stand down" rather than get on a flight from Tripoli to Benghazi where they would reinforce the CIA operatives and Libyan militia fighting the attackers.

But well before he sat down in front the microphone, Hicks knew the answer for why the jets hadn't been scrambled: They couldn't have gotten there in time, something examined in full by the Accountability Review Board's independent report.

As for the Special Operations guys, they weren't some fully outfitted Delta Force unit ready to obliterate the men who had dared attack American facilities. They were just four guys in all, no doubt brave and eager to go. But they weren't combat ready, being armed solely with 9mm sidearms. If they had left on the plane for Benghazi, they would have arrived too late to save any lives.

It's impossible to believe that Hicks wasn't, eight months after the fact, fully aware of the reason those four weren't sent.

The best available evidence suggests the amount of the gas in the air has not been this high for at least three million years, before humans evolved, and scientists believe the rise portends large changes in the climate and the level of the sea.

“It symbolizes that so far we have failed miserably in tackling this problem,” said Pieter P. Tans, who runs the monitoring program at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that reported the new reading.

May 09, 2013

Having noticed my series of outraged posts about the utterly needless approval by the City of Salem of a US Bank request to remove five large trees in front of the bank building in downtown Salem, recently someone sent me a photo of the Ellis Island National Monument in Upper New York Bay.

The photo was found via Google Maps. Since it was rather blurry, here's a similar photo I found on Google Images.

Do you see all of the large, leafy, beautiful trees in front of historic buildings?

If Ellis Island was transported into downtown Salem and transformed into a US Bank branch, bank president Alan Allbritton would have asked to have them cut them down. And City of Salem Public Works director would have allowed this, even though the City's Shade Tree Committee and expert arborists would have advised otherwise.

Thankfully, the federal government has more sense than the City of Salem and US Bank. Plus, there aren't any political shenanigans Involved with the Ellis Island trees.

US Bank claimed that five beautiful Japanese Zelkova trees needed to be killed because they cut off sightlines to a building in Salem's Historic District. However, nothing in Salem's tree ordinance (Chapter 86) talks about criteria for removing trees there -- only planting trees there.

So Fernandez and Allbritton made stuff up to get around the plain fact that there was no good reason, none at all, to cut down the trees. They also seemingly lost the ability to understand simple English, such as the familiar word "prune."

(The thrice-repeated recommendation of the Shade Tree Committee, should any problems with the size of the trees be apparent.)

I took this photo before three of the five Zelkovas were cut down.

This was an unjustified murder of three innocent trees. Hopefully more innocent blood sap won't be shed from the remaining two trees, saved from the initial slaughter by baby birds sheltering in their branches.

Historic buildings can coexist with beautiful large trees. There are plenty of examples of this elsewhere in downtown Salem, as on Ellis Island. Unfortunately, politics trumped sound decision-making in this case.

May 08, 2013

There was no good reason for the City of Salem (Oregon) to approve a request by US Bank to remove five healthy, beautiful, large Japanese Zelkova trees.

All signs point to the decision being politically motivated. That's shameful. Being an avid fan of The Sopranos, I would expect decisions by local officials in New Jersey to be politically slanted. But here in Oregon we expect cleaner city government.

Below you'll find the expert views of Woody Dukes, an arborist for 39 years, 25 with the City of Salem.

Woody testified at the January 9 meeting of the City's Shade Tree Committee, which three times -- three -- recommended that the Zelkovas be pruned rather than removed. Yet Peter Fernandez, City of Salem Public Works director, somehow granted US Bank regional president Alan Allbritton's removal request.

Allbritton is the incoming president of the Salem Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber of Commerce is a big backer of the City of Salem's crusade to spend $600-800 million on a Third Bridge across the Willamette which hardly anyone other than the Chamber and Realtor's Association believes is needed.

In 2010 Fernandez promised Allbritton that the five US Bank Trees would be removed, even though Allbritton hadn't gone through the prescribed application process.

After Allbritton did, and tree experts (along with the Shade Tree Committee) said "prune, don't kill," Fernandez kept his promise to the US Bank President -- while breaking any promise he may have made upon taking office to put facts and the public interest above special interests.

Here's some information from long-time city arborist Woody Dukes which will strengthen the suspicions of so many tree and bird lovers that the City of Salem and US Bank had no good reason to cut down the trees.

Two remain. They need to stay. Nothing will bring back the three trees which have been killed. Saving the last two trees may restore some measure of good will toward City officials and US Bank.

---------------------------Excerpts from an email message arborist Woody Dukes sent me:

Hi Brian. I went through the Shade Tree Advisory Committee minutes from the Jan 9, 2013 hearing at Pringle Hall with regard to the Ladd & Bush Bank request to remove the Zelcovas on the State St side of their building.

I also went through the "Background, Findings and Decision regarding the removal of the State Street Trees (302 State Street S: Ladd & Bush Building—US Bank) from March 12, 2013 that came from Peter Fernandez, Director of Public Works for the City of Salem [quoted in red, along with Allbritton quotes].

Here is what I gleaned out of them:

From Peter Fernandez in his "Findings" on March 12, 2013:

"1. Aesthetics. There is a difference of opinion between the tree removal proponents and opponents as to the aesthetic quality of the trees. One faction believes that the mature trees provide a visual appeal. The other believes that the difference in size between the Commercial and State Street trees creates a poor aesthetic."

The City allowed the trees on the Commercial St side to be removed. The differences in sizes directly relates to the removal of those trees, not the remaining ones on State although that is now the case.

"While the aesthetics of mature trees may be debated, the record indicates that “the [zelkova] trees have grown beyond their anticipated design."

How do they know that these trees have grown beyond the anticipated design? I was told by Wilbur Bluhm, one of the committee members that decided on the locations and genus/species of trees to be planted in this program that these Zelkovas were chosen specifically for the bank. He is one of the most respected horticulturalists in the area if not even broader recognition. He was a consultant for the "Sunset Western Garden Book".

(Also Professor Emeritus, Oregon State University Extension Service, and Horticultural Consultant, Board Member, Rhododendron Species Foundation, member of the Native Plant Society and teaches Horticulture part time at Chemeketa Community College.)

"3. Additional maintenance requirements due to leaves and roots. The proponents of removing the trees state that the existing trees create additional maintenance requirements due to dropping leaves in the fall and root encroachment into the stormwater drainage facilities. Any deciduous tree planted in the public right of way, by definition, will create leaf litter in the fall."

The City accepts this basic issue with all trees.

"The record indicates, however, that the Princeton Sentry Ginko trees planted on Commercial Street drop their leaves in a more concentrated manner than the existing Japanese Zelkova trees. ... The record also indicates that staff believes that at least one of the Zelkova trees may, in fact, be impacting the stormwater drainage facilities at this location."

Why not remove all trees and plant Princeton Sentry Ginkgo trees if this particular leaf-drop problem is 'corrected' by such replacement? Does this mean that any and all future tree removals in the downtown core (and elsewhere) will be replaced by these ginkgo trees?

Has it been proven "in fact" that stormwater drainage facilities have been impacted by the tree(s)? What impact? What is the plan to correct this impact after removal of the offending tree(s)? In FACT, there are NO storm drains on the State Street side of the bank.

Are they saying here that the possible impact is to below-ground infrastructure? Can we see in writing what this impact consists of?

If trees are going to be removed, the reasons must be concrete and the tangible damage be shown both in writing and with visual evidence of said damage incurred with proof that the tree(s) is/are all or in part responsible. Permits for any action should not be issued on such 'loose' or speculative language.

---------------------

From Ryan Allbritton's testimony at the Jan 9th STAC hearing:

"Three years ago they had requested all trees on Commercial Street and State Street (adjacent to the bank) be removed and were told by the City officials to hold off on the State St side for two reasons; one being an issue in the community of having all nine trees taken out at once and that future curb work on State Street would require the removal of the remaining trees. The City replaced the curb along Commercial Street and then replanted small trees. The bank was told they could do half the tree removal now (i.e. 2010) and could do the other half in two years (i.e. 2012)."

The bank, as they stated in their testimony on Jan 9th before the Shade Tree Advisory Committee, said that they "had a deal". From what is written here, it seems to me that there was a "deal" and that Fernandez's decision on March 12th 2013 was actually made in 2010.

[boldface emphasis added by me, because this shameful seeming fact needs to be emphasized]

"They [US Bank] are now asking the City through the STAC's recommendation to let them replace the trees that are on the North side of the building in fulfillment of the agreement they have with the City [in 2010]. The curb on that side has been worked on but is not complete and they state the city will need to remove them to fix the curb; it causes a liability to their customers and the citizens as a whole."

The City has already performed the work of replacing the curb without any major issues with tree roots AND without removing the trees.

From Brian Hines' piece quoting Peter Fernandez in his decision to issue the permit:

Fernandez says sidewalk liability concerns are “not pertinent to the tree removal decision." Yet US Bank officials have been telling people that the trees needed to be cut down for this reason.

I believe that Fernandez should have taken the advice of the STAC [Shade Tree Advisory Committee] and had the trees pruned.

They probably would be improperly pruned by removing more than the recommended maximum of leaf removal of 25% each year because they would have been raised all around, reduced in height by some unknown amount and pruned back from the building. Then, if the work performed was not satisfactory, the bank should have been allowed another appeal to (try and) press their case again.

I sat in the back. Since this wasn't an expressive gospel-spouting church service, I didn't jump up, throw my arms in the air, and yell "Praise be!" "Hallelujah" "Tell it like it is, Brother Michael" or such.

But I felt like it. Instead, I kept muttering to my closest seatmate Yes, Good, Absolutely, and other affirmations of the fresh vision Davis has for how the Statesman Journal will handle news and opinion.

Before the talk I'd told my new City Club friend (I joined recently, partly because Loustic Catering offers up a great lunch with a vegetarian option) that the Statesman Journal had refused to publish in its print edition an opinion piece I'd written with Carole Smith about the City of Salem's atrocious decision to approve US Bank's request to cut down five beautiul healthy downtown trees for no good reason.

So I listened carefully for signs that even though this time the Statesman Journal had said "no" to a well-written, timely, provocative opinion piece about a local issue that has attracted widespread interest, such won't happen again.

I came away feeling pretty good.

Davis said that he's only been in town for six weeks. That isn't long enough to shake things up at a newspaper that needs some rocking and rolling. I suspect Davis is feeling his way along, getting to know both Salem and the staff of the Statesman Journal.

This is another Gannett paper which, unsurprisingly, has a web site that looks almost exactly like the Statesman Journal's; so the SJ's online presence will look familiar to Davis, given that Gannett takes a cookie cutter approach in this area.

Along this line, at the City Club meeting Davis was asked how the items on the Statesman Journal's national page of news that comes from USA Today, also a Gannett paper, was chosen. Davis replied that it isn't the Statesman Journal's choice, though he wishes it was.

The SJ's web site design and USA Today's force-fed page shows that Davis doesn't have complete freedom to remake Salem's newspaper. But from his City Club remarks, it sure sounds like he is out to change the paper's "corporate culture."

Which hasn't reflected the moderate make-up of the Salem-area citizenry, almost equally divided between Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, progressives and traditionalists.

I agreed with most of his "newbie" insights into the town I've lived in or near since 1977.

Salem is cooler than it appears to outsiders, especially those who compare it with Portland or Eugene. Our creative class (not a great term; best I can come up with) is largely hidden away in isolated outposts of artistry, eccentricity, and cutting-edge expressiveness.

It sounds like Davis wants to expose this Other Side of Salem, which has mostly been ignored by the Statesman Journal's news and opinion reporting for as many years as my senior citizen mind can remember.

I'm reminded of the familiar humorous phrase, reality has a liberal bias. Yet it isn't funny when inconvenient truths get downplayed by what Davis correctly called our "paper of record."

Meaning, the Statesman Journal hasn't been nearly as passionate about reporting unseemly goings-on associated with conservative City of Salem or Marion County elected officials as the paper has, say, with the Willamette ESD -- which has been taken to task for a myriad of sins, many of them much less serious than, say, allowing Courthouse Square to fall into virtually complete ruin, or, say, conspiring to ruin downtown (I'm thinking Third Bridge, parking meters, and killing of trees, plus meddling with downtown association activities)

So kudos to you, Michael Davis, for saying all the right things last Friday. I believe that you really do want to make the Statesman Journal into a newspaper for all area residents, not just "the 50%" on the right side of the political spectrum.

Shake things up enough, and I might even be able to forgive the newspaper's extremely poorly argued 2012 endorsement of Mitt Romney for President. (Note: I said might; that editorial will be long remembered by me as an example of poor journalism.)

(Comment away on the guest opinion and letter, especially if you think we've expressed ourselves brilliantly and are on the proper side of truth, justice, baby birds, and shade trees.)

But there's more publicizing to be done. This afternoon, while mowing the grass, my mind popped up the best idea of all.

This crazy US bank tree cutting drama needs to be featured on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart!

Freaking f#!%ing genius, Brian! I told myself, as I do so often -- yet usually with considerably less reason.

The story is a natural for The Daily Show. That's obvious. I just can't decide which member of their news team would be the best fit to come out to Salem and report on the delicious absurdities of our downtown drama.

I like John Oliver a lot. But his English accent could be distracting.

Jason Jones probably would be best. He could project a requisite blend of sarcasm and outrage. Humorously, of course. Or I could easily see Samantha Bee doing some killer interviews with the story's Cast of Characters.

We've got at least...

The five trees themselves. Three have been cut down. Two remain. The arc of the story depends on what happens with the last two (more about that below).

Baby birds. They are what saved the two trees from being killed in the first wave of chainsaw attacks. Interviews with local Audubon types in bird suits would be in order.

Crazed French chef. David Rosales would be pleased, I'm sure, to re-enact his screaming protest of the tree-killings inside the US Bank lobby.

Ambitious Public Works director. Peter Fernandez wants to spend $700 million or so on a Third Bridge that hardly anybody but the Chamber of Commerce and Realtor's Association wants. He approved the tree removals even though he was advised not to by City tree experts and its Shade Tree Committee.

Ambitious US Bank president. That is Ryan Allbritton who -- surprise! -- also is the incoming president of the Chamber of Commerce.

Marvelous scenes in a The Daily Show investigative bit present themselves to my imagination. And I'm not even a professional. For sure our Salemia team -- David Jenkins, a screenwriter, and Mike Perron, a person hard to describe -- could come up with some great ideas here.

I'll just give a few examples that easily came to mind:

Interviewer: Mr. Allbritton, I understand that a French chef was arrested in your lobby for screaming in outrage about what a giant U.S. bank had done. If this is illegal, why isn't most of the American public behind bars?

Allbritton: [mute irritated look]

------------------

Interviewer: Mr. Fernandez, you are the Public Works director of an Oregon town that is proud of winning 37 consecutive Tree City USA awards. Your department received an application to cut down five beautiful healthy downtown trees. The City's tree experts, independent arborists, and members of the public all advised you to prune, rather than kill, the trees. So naturally you decided to save the trees, right?

Fernandez: No, I issued a decision to kill them.

Like I said, it's the ending of The Daily Show investigative bit that is in question here. This depends on whether US Bank and the City persist in cutting down the last two trees.

Speaking for the opponents, I'd much prefer to have a lighter-hearted positive ending.

Via this blog post, I now declare to US Bank that I am offering to devote some of my retired time, which could have gone to being a greeter at WalMart, to becoming a volunteer leaf raker for the downtown Salem US Bank branch.

I've heard from reliable sources (a term that makes me sound more like a real journalist than a blogger, assuming this is a step up) that US Bank wanted the trees removed because when they drop leaves in the fall, customers track them into the lobby.

Well, Mr. Allbritton, I'm your leaf-collecting man.

I live out in rural south Salem. We have some large oak trees around our house that shed more leaves than the remaining Zelkova trees at your bank do. I can handle leaf-picking-up duties for both our trees and your trees.

Glad to help.

Even though it looks to me like US Bancorp made over five billion dollars last year, I can understand why bank executives might not want to spend money on picking up leaves from some beautiful trees on a public street adjoining the Ladd & Bush downtown branch.

I'd do it for free, because this is the only remaining reason I can think of why US Bank would want to cut down the last two trees. Three of five have been removed, reducing any possible minor problems with them (such as sightlines to the building) by 60%.

Tree experts and the City's own urban forester say that pruning can resolve any other problems, such as branches being too close to the building. Liability issues associated with any future sidewalk problems that could be caused by roots isn't a concern; this was made clear in Fernandez' March 12 decision document.

All I ask -- and this is a "please" not a must -- is that I be able to wear a US Bank baseball cap while I pick up the leaves. This would show passers by that I'm someone officially associated with the bank, and just a crazy senior citizen skateboarder, not a crazy street person.

It'd be cool if the end of The Daily Show bit showed us all -- bank officials, City staff, opponents -- sitting down in Rosale's restaurant and sharing a "no hard feelings" toast together. Of course, there would have to be some humor here also.

How about if bank president Ryan Allbritton doesn't like the taste of the French wine and starts screaming at Rosales, almost turning over a table. Then stops himself just in time... with a grin. Hug by Rosales. "We're brothers, man."

The other possible ending? Not so heart-warming, if all five trees have been cut down. I'd rather not envision it. Let's be positive.

Save the last two trees, US Bank. You'd come out looking better in a The Daily Show segment. Also, in the eyes of the tree-loving public.

Write US Bank and tell them you'd like to see a happier ending to the tree story. Just three dead trees, not five.

May 02, 2013

Being a writer, I'm used to rejection notices. But this one hurt more than usual.

Because the cause I had written about was saving the last two beautiful US Bank trees in downtown Salem, which are on the chopping block after the City of Salem granted the bank's request to cut down five marvelous Zelkova trees.

The City's Shade Tree Committee said no, no, no to the request. Three times. The City's urban forester and independent arborists said any problems with the trees could be addressed by pruning, not killing them.

This was after the regional president of US Bank, Ryan Allbritton, reminded Fernandez that three years ago he had promised Allbritton the trees would be removed -- leaving aside the inconvenient fact that the City's tree ordinance requires that removal requests in the downtown Historic District go through the Shade Tree Committee, not be approved via Imperial Fiat by Fernandez.

The whole affair reflects very poorly on the City of Salem and US Bank.

But Carole Smith, a downtown businesswoman and resident, and I hold out hope that the city and bank can salvage some good will from the psyches of appropriately outraged tree-loving citizens by letting the last two trees remain.

(They apparently are still standing only because migrating birds, which seem to have more legal rights than trees, are sheltering in the Zelkovas; when the birds go, so do the last two trees.)

Wanting the public to be as informed as possible about the injustices being inflicted on both the trees and Salem residents who value them, I wrote a 500 word guest opinion, got an OK from co-submitter Carole, and sent it off to the Statesman Journal a few days ago.

Last night an editorial page staffer said that our piece had been rejected for the print edition. I fired off an intense email asking why. Our guest opinion was timely, factual, well written (in my non-humble opinion), provocative, and indicative of broader problems with how City of Salem staff function, or not, as public servants.

I was told by editorial page editor Dick Hughes that with the Oregon legislature in session, the Statesman Journal has gotten quite a few guest opinion submissions. In response, I again appealed to Hughes and executive editor Michael Davis that a timely local subject of interest to the Salem community deserves space on the paper's opinion pages.

Maybe the Statesman Journal will put our guest opinion online. Maybe Carole and I will be able to have letters to the editor published.

[Update: later today Dick Hughes emailed me that our piece was online at the Statesman Journal web site. Of course, it also would have been if the newspaper had chosen to publish it in the print edition. So Carole and I are thankful. But not that thankful. Links to other stories and letters to the editor about the removal of the US Bank trees can be found here.]

And maybe those last two trees will be cut down before people in Salem are aware of what a horrible decision it was to remove the five US Bank trees rather than prune them, as tree experts recommended.

Years ago Peter Fernandez made a promise to Ryan Allbritton that he would accede to the incoming President of the Salem Chamber of Commerce's request to cut down the trees. Well, I've made my own promise: to the two remaining trees that I will do what I can to save them.

Bad public policy decisions are more difficult to carry out when the public is broadly aware of them. Thus Carole and I want to make as many people as possible in Salem aware of how unnecessary and unjust the death-sentencing of five beautiful downtown trees is.

Pass on the word. Legally we may not be able to stop the remaining trees from being cut down. However, as we say in the opinion piece:

Nothing will bring back the three wonderful trees that have been reduced to stumps. However, at the moment two equally beautiful trees remain at the corner of State and Commercial.

Since there was no good reason to cut down any of the five trees, that no-good-reason has been reduced by 60% with the destruction of three trees. Some good will for the City of Salem and US Bank can be salvaged if they belatedly acknowledge this.

Please, Peter Fernandez, City Public Works Director, and Ryan Allbritton, US Bank regional president: save the remaining trees.

If they too are cut down for no good reason, their absence will speak volumes about how solid facts, expert advice, and public testimony mean next to nothing in how the City of Salem operates these days.